AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the Tanoan Community East Association, Inc., a New Mexico non-profit organization, and Stanley Z. Peplinski, a self-represented litigant. The dispute arose from four orders issued against Peplinski, including sanctions for discovery violations, the designation of requests for admission as admitted due to Peplinski's failure to respond, the denial of Peplinski's second motion to reconsider the sanctions order, and the granting of summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. Peplinski appealed these orders, challenging the district court's decisions on various grounds, including judicial bias and errors in procedural rulings.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: The summary does not provide specific arguments made by the Plaintiff-Appellee.
• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the judge failed to disqualify herself despite a conflict of interest stemming from a previous case and exhibited judicial bias by not allowing him to call witnesses, chastising him, favoring the Plaintiff’s attorney, and bringing a sheriff into the courtroom (paras 2-4). Contended that the district court erred by allowing the substitution of Plaintiff’s counsel without following proper procedures and that this substitution prejudiced his case (paras 5-6). Claimed errors related to discovery issues and the standing of substitute counsel to propound discovery (paras 7-8). Argued that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff, asserting that Plaintiff failed to meet the standards for summary judgment and to support its motion with admissible evidence (paras 9-10). Raised a new issue in his memorandum in opposition, asserting that Plaintiff lacked standing to file the complaint and collect on the judgment (paras 11-13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the judge erred by not disqualifying herself due to a previous involvement with the Defendant in a different case and exhibited judicial bias against the Defendant (para 2).
• Whether the district court erred by allowing the substitution of Plaintiff’s counsel without following court rules for withdrawal and substitution of counsel (para 5).
• Whether the district court erred with respect to various discovery issues, including whether substitute counsel had standing to propound discovery (para 7).
• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff (para 9).
• Whether Plaintiff lacked standing to file the complaint and collect on the judgment (para 11).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions on all issues raised by the Defendant-Appellant (para 14).

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge concurring): The Court found that the Defendant-Appellant did not preserve the issues of judicial bias and error for appellate review and, even if preserved, the claims lacked merit. The Court was not persuaded that the judge was required to disqualify herself or that the Defendant-Appellant's assertions substantiated claims of judicial bias or hostility. Regarding the substitution of counsel, the Court noted that the Defendant-Appellant did not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by any alleged errors. On the discovery issues, the Court found that the Defendant-Appellant did not demonstrate error or prejudice. Concerning the summary judgment, the Court presumed the correctness of the district court’s actions due to insufficient information provided by the Defendant-Appellant. Finally, the Court considered and denied the new issue raised by the Defendant-Appellant regarding the Plaintiff's standing to file the complaint and collect on the judgment, finding that the record established a valid contract between the parties (paras 2-14).